Re: [PATCH 8/11] Time: i386 Conversion - part 4: ACPI PM variable renaming and config change.

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I'll tenatively merge these patches into next -mm so they can get a
> > bit of testing.  Which causes a problem, because you don't then have a tree
> > against which to raise a new patch series.
> 
> I greatly appreciate the inclusion! I'm hoping a bit of time in -mm will
> shake out any remaining bugs. 
> 
> Although I'm not sure I understand what you mean about me not having a
> tree? Do you mean a public git tree? 
> 

Sorry.  I meant that once I've merged this series into -mm, you can no
longer generate a new patch series against -mm!  If I were to leave this
patch series out of next -mm, you'd have a clean tree to raise patches
against.

>
> > So perhaps it would be best if you were to
> > 
> > a) Tell me which patches to fold into which other patches to generate a
> >    series which compiles at every stage and
> > 
> > b) Send me a new set of changelogs for the resulting patch series.
> 
> I've got a set of chained git trees that store each patch, so its very
> easy to re-generate the changelog + patches after I've re-arranged them
> as you suggested.
> 
> Would a new patch-set to replace the current patchset be preferred here
> or do you just want the above?  

Replacement would be best.  If you can regenerate the diffs against
whatever tree you generated the last batch, that would work.

> Similarly, if we do run into bugs, would you prefer incremental fixup
> patches or cumulative replacement patches when a new release of the
> patchset is generated?

minimally-sized incremental fixes are preferred, please.

> I'm just getting back from vacation tonight, so I'll send whatever you
> prefer sometime tomorrow.

That would be good, thanks.